You are here
Home › Serious non-political crime ›EDAL case summaries
Every country has the right to control the entry and residence of aliens in its territory. Withdrawal of subsidiary protection from individuals convicted of serious crimes and subsequent expulsion does not violate their right to family life under Article 8, when there are alternative means of communication, non-severed cultural ties with the motherland and a reasonable prospect of return after the entry ban expiry.
The applicant, who had deserted the Syrian army, was seen in isolation covered by the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1) [refugee status]. However, the Board found serious reasons to assume that the applicant had committed a crime against humanity and war crimes during his military service and consequently he was excluded from protection. Nevertheless, the Danish Aliens Act Art. 31, (2) is an obstacle to his expulsion as he would risk persecution covered by the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1) in the case of returning to Syria.
This case is concerned with whether the decision to deny the asylum application and the subsequently imposed entry ban were justified based on articles 1F(a)-(c). Under these provisions the Secretary of State can raise national security as a ‘serious ground’ for his decision if an element of ‘personal participation’ can be proven.
Article 1F of the Refugee Convention relates to the application of a definition and not whether an individual seeking asylum should obtain protection or not. Therefore, and with regards to Article 1F(b), any post-offence conduct does not serve to mitigate the seriousness of an alleged non-political offence. No doctrine of expiation is to, thus, be applied to Article 1F(b).
The term serious used in Article 1F(b) denotes especially grave offending and requires no further qualification by the term “particularly."
The judgment concerns the scope of Article 21 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 with regards to derogation from protection from refoulement and the possibility to revoke a residence permit issued to a refugee pursuant to Article 24 of said Directive.
This case concerned the meaning of “serious” in Article 1F(b): the Court had to decide whether the crime of participating in a criminal association with a terrorist aim was sufficiently serious enough to exclude the applicant from international protection.
1. The issue as to whether an asylum-seeker was already protected against political persecution in a third country is only relevant in terms of the asylum application for recognition of refugee status in the context of the concept of the first country of asylum as defined in EU law in Article 29 of the Asylum Procedures Act (Articles 25 and 26 of the Asylum Procedures Directive).
2. If the Federal Office has reached a decision on the asylum application in this case, the substantive question of the subsidiarity of refugee protection in the assessment of refugee status is...
This case concerned exclusion from refugee status on the basis of a war crime and a serious non-political crime.
A Chechen who was involved in the Second Chechen War - outside of the general combat action - in the killing and wounding of Russian soldiers and the kidnapping of a Russian officer to force the release of another Chechen is at risk of being exposed to torture or at least inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the Russian Federation.
Application for annulment of a decision by the Minister of Public Order.
This case concerned special protection status in accordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention andexclusion from protection of those who have committed a serious crime under “common law”. The crime committed by the applicant (attempted murder of the Indian Ambassador in Romania) does not fall within the concepts of “political”, “composite” or “related” crimes, even if it was carried out because of the offender's political opinions or principles, or with the intent of achieving such aims. The implementation of the...
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Serious non-political crime filterSerious non-political crime
- Exclusion from protection 21
- Terrorism 11
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 7
- Crime against humanity 6
- War crimes 6
- Refugee Status 5
- Individual assessment 4
- Subsidiary Protection 4
- Internal armed conflict 3
- Non-refoulement 3
- Revocation of protection status 3
- Standard of proof 3
- Armed conflict 2
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Cessation of protection 2
- First country of asylum 2
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2
- Protection 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Torture 2
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Country of origin 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- More favourable provisions 1
- Nationality 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Real risk 1
- Religion 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Safe third country 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Turkey 7
- Russia 5
- Russia (Chechnya) 3
- Algeria 2
- Syria 2
- Afghanistan 1
- Colombia 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- India 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Kosovo 1
- Ukraine 1
- Unknown 1
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 9
- United Kingdom 2
- Austria 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Denmark 1
- Finland 1
- France 1
- Greece 1
- Netherlands 1
- Spain 1